State v. Morrill’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
157 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Kasper (1979), State v. Willis (1985)
157 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Greenwald v. Maryland · State v. Goyet · State v. Coburn · State v. Orlandi · State v. Ciocca
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to reach the question attempted to be raised we must first decide whether this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases where a glaring error occurred during the trial and was so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the respondent’s constitutional rights. It is only in this context that we will examine the case and determine whether the record indicates it is of this character since the question is not otherwise properly before this court.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hunt · State v. McGrath“Generally, it can be said that the strength of the evidence is one of the controlling factors on the duration of the deliberation of the jury. There is no law which requires a jury to deliberate any longer than may be necessary to agree upon a verdict. And jurors undoubtedly begin their deliberation process during the progress of the trial. Furthermore, the historical inviolability and independence of the jury tend to make inquiry into the manner of reaching a verdict improper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCrea v. State“The law does not attempt to prescribe the length of time which a jury should take to arrive at a verdict. Indeed it has been held that a jury may render a verdict without retiring. Of course, the trial court may — and doubtless should — cause the jury to reconsider its verdict if it considers that their decision is so hasty as to indicate, in the circumstances, either a flippant disregard or a perfunctory performance of their duties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCrea v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.